Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 1:44 PM
186 online now:
edge, kjsimons, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 181 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   the rules in science
onifre
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 123 (485701)
10-10-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Syamsu
10-10-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Different words for clarity
Wow, i've been trying to follow most of this but Syamsu you can be hard to understand, no offence.

Cause and effect is false, or a soft-science view of things

There are still some Buddist around who would take issue with cause and effect being strictly scientific,

quote:
Common to all schools of Buddhism, it states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. It is variously rendered into English as "dependent origination", "conditioned genesis", "dependent co-arising", "interdependent arising", or "contingency".

the common use of words such as love is not in respect to brains, which are generally not mentioned, but always in relation to freedom.

When one is speaking of brain funtions, and their corelation to emotions, one is just describing chemical functions. When you use the word love, what do you mean?

one can use reasonable judgement, an art, to avoid talking about toothbrushes loving, but you can't prove or disprove love scientifically for any decision. What you want is to say that "treehugging" for instance is a scientifically invalid pastime. You are misusing science for what is basicly religious bigotry, as is well shown by that your only argument against it seems to be that it is ridiculous and therefore unscientific.

Of course there's religious bigotry, it's a man designed institution that makes outlandish claims...intellectuals take offence when religous zealots claim ridiculous things about nature that are unsupported with facts. They get to be a thorn on one's side.

You say you can't disprove or prove love...well then it does not exist then does it?

So your claim that toothbrushes feel love is wrong, right?

I'll also say that humans don't feel love either. Can we agree on any of that?

In fact I'll go one further and say that nothing feels emotions, period.

So to this,

What you want is to say that "treehugging" for instance is a scientifically invalid pastime.

I would just say that it's a guy hugging a tree, for no reason at all.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 11:34 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 77 of 123 (485703)
10-10-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
10-10-2008 4:32 PM


Re: Different words for clarity
Reasonable judgement is an art that keeps nations, and also science together. Your absolutized scientific method is an unwieldy formalism. The practice to provide evidence for claims is a common courtesy established for as long as there were people. How much more powerful is a reference to a common practice close to a spiritual value, than a reference to the mechanical formalism of an absolute, brutal, unwieldy scientific method.

You know it is WRONG to objectify love and such, you know it is WRONG to speak in terms of oughts as science. So then when you know it is wrong you categorize into the material and the spiritual, and by that organization you will be doing less wrong, it is practical. I do not trust you because you don't have a separate category for the oughts. That means you are going to end up putting them in the material category, no matter what you say about subjectivity now, because material is the only category for you. I've seen the supersmart types argue the materiality of oughts, that's where you will be going. Adding sophisticated confusion upon vagueness and nobody knows anymore whether or not it is a fact or an ought. But the context is all facts, so the implication is ought=is, it is unnecessary pseudoscience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 4:32 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2008 8:18 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 8:48 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 78 of 123 (485709)
10-10-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Syamsu
10-10-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Different words for clarity
Hi Syamsu,

Straggler has asked me to try to answer the "decision" questions he put to you

quote:
As Syamsu is so unwilling to answer and as you seem to be the only person who even claims to have half an idea as to what he does actually mean, maybe you can answer the following questions:
Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?

How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature?

Syamsu is claiming that all alternatives in time are formed by decisions and that the reason "why" any given outcome is chosen over any other is a subjective decision made in the "spiritual realm". All acts of nature are therefore "decisions" and the inanimate objects and processes involved in such decisions are therefore capable of good, evil, love and all other non-objective facets of the "spiritual realm".

So what decisions do toothbrushes make, can planetary orbits be evil and do coffee-cups experience love?

As stupid as the above sentance sounds Syamsu has claimed all of the above as "common sense" conclusions of his decisions theory. Are you really agreeing with this?


I was wondering if you are at all familiar with Lotka's Elements of Physical Biology


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

The reason I ask is because the notion of adjustor here is much like a generic "decision". I can report that Wright's 1931 reference to Lotka's "larger" notion from species seems to NOT have been followed up on. Furthermore, recent work in "Coalesent Theory" utlilizes the forward process (and they use this F word) that Lotka describes in general (see 'thumbs' above) and yet rather than developing the decisions outside the frame of animal's behavior as Lotka did and Wright contained statistically (to Darwin) they have constructed a backward ancestral process (see John Wakely Coalescent Theory).

Until this is brought out in biology (admiting a possible forward role for teleology in the change in gene frequency view)(instead we have Gould claiming an "adaptive hardening" since the 30s rather than a tasteful expansion), it would be hard put to say if the molecules of a climatic catastrophe make decisions in any way. That doesnt seem like common sense to me. But the Tin beetle and Tusnami are similar in a way. What happened in biology was the use of biotic adapations to discuss group selection. I can not claim presciences anyfurther on your decision perspective. If this helps to answer than that is all I can give.

This seems to be what is causing biologists to not seperate the why question anymore but I doubt it supports the idea that atoms make moral decisions. For Lotka statistics intervened. Wright's path analysis provided a unique approach that Fisher did not have but theorectical biology never grew large enough. So instead of something that seemed so obvious to Kant being extant it is now hard to get the same across.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 7:36 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 123 (485712)
10-10-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Syamsu
10-10-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Different words for clarity
All subjectivity is rooted in the physical.

Take away your brain and lets see how subjective or moral you are capable of being.

We can study the physical basis of subjective thought

Psychology, brain physiology, evolutionary aspects of moral and social development etc. etc. etc. These things can tell us why we are as we are using the exact same methods that we use to investigate any other aspect of nature. I.e. the methods of science.

But scientifically understanding the physiology of love or the evolutionary aspects of morality have no bearing on the subjective worth of these things

Studying why and how human societies developed a certain moral framework will not tell us what we "ought" to do.
Understanding the physiology and psychology of love will not make me love my son any less.
Subjectivity is what makes us human rather than mindless automatons. I embrace subjectivity but I also embrace understanding. The two need not contradict each other.

Your absolutized scientific method is an unwieldy formalism. The practice to provide evidence for claims is a common courtesy established for as long as there were people. How much more powerful is a reference to a common practice close to a spiritual value, than a reference to the mechanical formalism of an absolute, brutal, unwieldy scientific method.

You have a very dim and very wrong view of what science actually is. Your arguments against science are largely against a non-existant version of science that you have conjured up as an imaginary adversary to your faith based beliefs.

Your ongoing inability to provide specific examples of where it is that you think science is overstepping it's possible remit is testament to this fact. Several of us have repeatedly asked you for such examples.

I do not trust you because you don't have a separate category for the oughts

Well actully yes I do. Morality and the like are subjective. We all agree on that. And I would have it no other way. BUT subjectivity is itself borne from the minds of men. Not some imaginary meaninglessly labelled "spiritual realm" that has no viable way of interracting with the physical world.

That means you are going to end up putting them in the material category, no matter what you say about subjectivity now, because material is the only category for you. I've seen the supersmart types argue the materiality of oughts, that's where you will be going. Adding sophisticated confusion upon vagueness and nobody knows anymore whether or not it is a fact or an ought. But the context is all facts, so the implication is ought=is, it is unnecessary pseudoscience.

There you go again telling other people what they actually think. The arrogance........... You seem to have been scarred by a bad experience with science at some point. Or indoctrinated against a false version of science.

Why do you deny the obvious conclusion that subjectivity is rooted in the physical? Why does this scare you so much that you ar prepared to grasp to obviously silly theories regarding toothbrushes, planets and the like?

Can you be subjective without your brain? Loving? Hateful? Can you make moral choices without your brain? If not why not? What has changed with regard to your interraction with the "spiritual realm" if your brain ceases to function?

This is where your whole theory falls down. In essence it is the mind body problem and no-one has adequately solved that one beyond concluding the purely physical.

  • Do you really think you are more capable of love than those of us that oppose your ideas?
  • Do you really think that you are more moral than those of us that oppose your ideas?

    Maybe we should test the theories you have about scientists and science by asking some moral dilemmas and seeing what responses people give and why they give the answers that they do? That would test the premise of your OP would it not?

    I think your preconceived notions about "science minded folk" would be utterly refuted. And you might even learn how the advocates of science actually do think in the process (not to mention how diverse the views might be)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 7:36 PM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 5:40 AM Straggler has responded

      
  • Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 80 of 123 (485749)
    10-11-2008 5:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 79 by Straggler
    10-10-2008 8:48 PM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    It is simply so, if you do not categorize, if you do not acknowledge, if you spend all your serious intellectual thought on the side of objectivity and material, then subjectivity will be just one material process among many material processes, the process of oughts, as like gravity, one among many.

    You will simply redefine the meaning of subjectivity along the lines of a predefined goal, where the alternatives are in the present, and computation of the alternatives with the predefined goal is noted as a decision.

    So then love becomes a function of the goal survival, and any choice between love or hate is a computation of them, according to which gives the better survival result. This then results in oughts and ought nots, on the basis of objectified calculable love and hate, which morality is not neccessarily in line with the goal of survival, but they are objectified within the framework of survival.

    So you will develop zero knowledge in terms of freedom, you will simply make it all forced, and leave a lot of vagueness at the center of your argument to substitute for acknowledging freedom.

    And since a very large percentage of scientists fall into this trap of defining decisions without freedom, with a predefined goal, I see no reason why you wouldn't as well.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 8:48 PM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2008 6:52 AM Syamsu has responded
     Message 84 by Agobot, posted 10-11-2008 3:38 PM Syamsu has responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 81 of 123 (485751)
    10-11-2008 6:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
    10-11-2008 5:40 AM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    You are telling everyone else what they think. Again. There is no point discussing anything with you if you are going to tell others what they think and then argue against what you think they think whilst simultaneously ignoring everything that is actually said to you.

    The whole premise of your OP is the unfounded claim that science is attempting to answer "why" questions that it cannot.

    Please give a specific example of such a "why" question along with the related research that you consider to be outside the scope of science.

    If you are unable to do this then I suggest that this is because the sort of "science" that you are objecting to is extremely rare and generally derided by the scientific community, if it even exists at all outside of your imagination.

    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 5:40 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 9:13 AM Straggler has responded

      
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 82 of 123 (485756)
    10-11-2008 9:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
    10-11-2008 6:52 AM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    You tell me the structure and the laws by which you think, so I can predict what you think. You can very well predict that I will keep oughts outside of science, because I've built the structure for doing that. A promise that you won't do it is meaningless, an intention without substantial practical organization to enforce it.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2008 6:52 AM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 83 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2008 10:41 AM Syamsu has responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 83 of 123 (485759)
    10-11-2008 10:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 82 by Syamsu
    10-11-2008 9:13 AM


    False Beginnings
    So you have no actual examples to backup your claims about science. Your claims are just assertions borne of irrational prejudice. The whole premise of your OP is false.

    You tell me the structure and the laws by which you think, so I can predict what you think.

    Then how come you keep managing to be so wrong about what I actually do think?

    You can very well predict that I will keep oughts outside of science, because I've built the structure for doing that. A promise that you won't do it is meaningless, an intention without substantial practical organization to enforce it.

    Well you have failed to specify where I, or science as a whole, even vaguely suggest that science can provide any sort of moral framework. In fact I have explained why, for entirely practical reasons, science will be explicitly unable to do this. The premise of your OP is simply a false assertion.

    THE SPRITUAL REALM
    As for your "spiritual realm" alternative..........
    You have invented a meaningless and undefined term that is nothing more than a label for your assertions. You then claim moral superiority because of your use of this meaningless and undefined label. Both the weakness and arrogance of your position are truly startling.

    Not only are you unable to backup your assertions regarding science, your proposed alternative falls foul of one of the oldest problems in philosophy. Namely the mind body problem. How do activities within this undefined "spiritual realm" interact with the physical and why does the physical have such dramatic effects on that which you claim to be spiritual?

    CONSEQUENCES
    It is when two opposing factions "know" with equal unevidenced certainty that they are right by means of the "spiritual realm" (or whatever they happen to label their own equally undefined version of your type of nonsense. Divine revelation, spiritual guidance, God given destiny, whatever) that unresolvable fundamentalist conflict occurs.

    A world full of people with such smug, uncompromising and unreasoned certainty in their own absolute moral superiority - Now that really is something to fear.

    GOODBYE
    Given that you are unable to present any specific examples to discuss and given that you seem intent on telling me what I think and arguing against that, rather than anything that I actually say, I may as well leave you to debate with yourself. I hope that you have fun doing so.

    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 9:13 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 5:43 PM Straggler has not yet responded

      
    Agobot
    Member (Idle past 3604 days)
    Posts: 786
    Joined: 12-16-2007


    Message 84 of 123 (485770)
    10-11-2008 3:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
    10-11-2008 5:40 AM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    Syamsu writes:

    It is simply so, if you do not categorize, if you do not acknowledge, if you spend all your serious intellectual thought on the side of objectivity and material, then subjectivity will be just one material process among many material processes, the process of oughts, as like gravity, one among many.
    You will simply redefine the meaning of subjectivity along the lines of a predefined goal, where the alternatives are in the present, and computation of the alternatives with the predefined goal is noted as a decision.

    So then love becomes a function of the goal survival, and any choice between love or hate is a computation of them, according to which gives the better survival result. This then results in oughts and ought nots, on the basis of objectified calculable love and hate, which morality is not neccessarily in line with the goal of survival, but they are objectified within the framework of survival.

    So you will develop zero knowledge in terms of freedom, you will simply make it all forced, and leave a lot of vagueness at the center of your argument to substitute for acknowledging freedom.

    And since a very large percentage of scientists fall into this trap of defining decisions without freedom, with a predefined goal, I see no reason why you wouldn't as well.

    I am not going to pretend I understand what you are talking about, but it seems you mean something along the claims of a Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto, who claimed inanimate objects such as water feel emotions:

    "Messages from water"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcJyObrka-0

    The movie is part of another movie worth seeing - "What the bleep do we know"(although some of the claims in that movie are pure speculation).

    I don't believe inanimate objects have souls, but if you are claiming this i'd be very interested to hear your arguments for it.

    If you are saying something else that evades my understanding, could you re-phrase so that more people could take part in your debate? Imagine you were talking to your granny or a truck driver - tell them in a way they'd understand by all means.

    Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

    "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

    -Albert Einstein


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 5:40 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Syamsu, posted 10-11-2008 6:16 PM Agobot has not yet responded

        
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 85 of 123 (485783)
    10-11-2008 5:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by Straggler
    10-11-2008 10:41 AM


    Re: False Beginnings
    It seems that you seek to control society by the science of love, so that they don't engage in fundamentalist conflict. There are many functional materialists within religion too, they simply regard the spiritual in the same way as they do the material. So you are just pushing up one side of religion, and pushing down another side. And ofcourse afterwards you will complain that the religionized natural selection has nothing to do with scientific natural selection. Another bad thing what your ENORMOUSLY ARROGANT science of love leads too, is that it knocks down reasonable judgement, which is quite fragile, because all things that must be freely sustained are fragile.

    So this is quite complex, and I suggest not to put your foot in it, and just obey the rule. So at least within science acknowledge the spiritual so you can attribute the oughts somewhere. A simple practical solution, that may also enhance your ability to cogently think about the new science about decisions, which is destined to dominate all of science.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2008 10:41 AM Straggler has not yet responded

        
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 86 of 123 (485785)
    10-11-2008 6:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Agobot
    10-11-2008 3:38 PM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    You should just take a look at the structure of your practical knowledge that is in terms of choosing. For instance according to practical knowledge alternatives are in the future. So what that scientist was saying in the video, that some things are in 2 places at the same time, and you can take a photo of it, is simply false. You can never take a photo of the 2, because the act of taking a photo would decide the alternatives. The alternatives can never ever be in any present, they are always in the future. So to say time is defined by the sequence of decisions, which is the common historical understanding of time.

    And every time they talk about observing, you should understand that to mean deciding. Observing is normally understood in terms of transferring information, without changing it. That they use the word observing for an act that changes a result shows they are in a conceptual mess.

    There are some things that are not in practical knowledge, but you can get a handle of the basics of it, and be smarter than most scientists, if you just raise your awareness of your common knowledge about freedom a bit. Abstract it a bit, formalize it, derive some general principles, and you have a better understanding of quantum physics and information theory than most scientists have.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Agobot, posted 10-11-2008 3:38 PM Agobot has not yet responded

        
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 87 of 123 (486029)
    10-15-2008 6:42 AM


    Come on people, we all have a moral duty to enforce the rules. We must keep the scientists out of the ought and ought not questions, we must safeguard religion, and reasonable judgement besides. The tried and tested way to keep science out of morality, is to have them attribute such questions to the spiritual realm.

    Ask yourself what damage can be done, if we just allow the rules to be broken. Would breaking the rules occasion just an intellectual annoyance, or would it occasion cataclysmic societal failure? My feeling says it's towards the last. It is just one of those things, that once you allow it, all bets are of, anything goes, including murder and mayhem. It allows for the strangest ideological beasts to be set free, and we see throughout history, that people are weak for such ideological beasts.

    I have evidence from direct experience. The fact that scientists deny freedom is real, produces in me a strange ideology, that anything is better than to have a scientist in, or close to power. To have a complete nutcase in power is better than to have anybody in power that listens to science. On the other side the main ideological force is for a morality of survival.

    The issue that scientists don't acknowledge freedom is related to their science of morality. They simply believe ought and ought nots are by force, just as everything else is forced.

    We can see that scientists talk in terms that freedom is real in their practical daily lives, and deny it is real as scientists because there is no paper that establishes free will as scientific fact. If not handled with care, this disparity between pratice and theory, can turn into a lie on both sides. To know that freedom is not real, and lying in your daily life that it is, or to know that freedom is real and to lie that freedom is not real intellectually. Ofcourse if handled with care one can avoid such lying, but do scientists really engage such care?

    Here's a local science popularizer speaking Kris Verburgh:
    "one doesn't need a god to be good. Our morale is an instinct that occurs with social creatures living in groups, the good is already within us."

    Is this supposed to be objective, is it subjective? Does anybody know which, including Kris himself? Scientists are not so careful, so they become liars.

    So by evidence that:

    - scientists are potentially liars about freedom
    - they confuse subjectivity with objectivity
    - that the confusion produces strange ideology in direct experience
    - the attribution of oughts and ought nots to the spiritual realm is a succesful tried and tested method to avoid these problems

    we should conclude to enforce the rules as they once were enforced, and still are in many places.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 8:51 AM Syamsu has responded
     Message 90 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 11:31 AM Syamsu has responded
     Message 93 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:54 PM Syamsu has responded

        
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 2263 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 88 of 123 (486032)
    10-15-2008 8:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Syamsu
    10-15-2008 6:42 AM


    I have evidence from direct experience. The fact that scientists deny freedom is real, produces in me a strange ideology, that anything is better than to have a scientist in, or close to power. To have a complete nutcase in power is better than to have anybody in power that listens to science. On the other side the main ideological force is for a morality of survival.

    What freedom does science deny. Do you know what freedom is? You seem to confuse freedom with free will. As for the staement

    Here's a local science popularizer speaking Kris Verburgh:
    "one doesn't need a god to be good. Our morale is an instinct that occurs with social creatures living in groups, the good is already within us."

    That is true. If ones's morality only comes from a god or gods then it is not free either as free will or freedom, but captive. I am moral not because some supernatural entity forbids such behavior under penalty of damnation, but that it is a logical sequence that if I expect that my family, my friends etc. should not be abused then I should not abuse the freedom of others. No god involved. That is freedom.


    There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

    Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 6:42 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 11:30 AM bluescat48 has responded

        
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 89 of 123 (486040)
    10-15-2008 11:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by bluescat48
    10-15-2008 8:51 AM


    You should not abuse my freedom, by misusing science to try to force on me what ought and ought not.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 8:51 AM bluescat48 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 3:46 PM Syamsu has responded

        
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 180 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 90 of 123 (486041)
    10-15-2008 11:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Syamsu
    10-15-2008 6:42 AM


    Rules? We don't got to enforce no steenkin' rules!
    Come on people, we all have a moral duty to enforce the rules.

    I think this "rules" business is all in your head.

    We must keep the scientists out of the ought and ought not questions...

    We? You and what army? Scientists have as much right to poke into those areas as any others. More so than your so called "spiritual realm" folks have a right to poke their noses into science, where it is clear most are woefully unqualified to hold opinions.

    ...we must safeguard religion

    Religion needs affirmative action now?

    ...and reasonable judgement besides.

    Right. Save "reasonable judgement" from those nasty scientists.

    The tried and tested way to keep science out of morality, is to have them attribute such questions to the spiritual realm.

    There is no evidence that the "spiritual realm" even exists.

    (Your posts just keep getting stranger and stranger. What'll you come up with next?)


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 6:42 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 1:28 PM Coyote has responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    45
    6
    789Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019